McCain's Temper

He won't be the first President with a temper and the ability to curse as needed. A long list of them, starting with Washington himself, and traveling right down the line to Clinton (slick willie, not hellery)have lost their temper on occasion, sometimes spectacularly.

One sitting Vice President shot and killed an ex Secretary of the Treasury; Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.

Andrew Jackson shot a man in a duel that started out over a horse race bet, and ended up over name calling.

Harry Truman threatened to beat a a music critic up over a bad review of Margaret Truman's singing. He did this on paper.

And Mr. Clinton himself was quoted as losing it during the following statement:

"He was red-faced as he yelled, ''I will do this race alone, alone, alone if I have to'' -- his voice now reaching a higher octave -- ''to avoid having done to me what was done to me every week, ev-er-y week, in 1993 and 1994 by my staff and my consultants. I will not have decisions that I make'' -- his fist now pounding his chair arm, keeping time with his words -- ''that take guts, that take courage, where I'm really risking everything, and have them transformed into'' -- his lips curling in a sneer -- ''seamy, seedy, political decisions so some staff member or some consultant can blow his own horn to look so smart and oh so good to some journalist. I'll do the race alone first.''

"Behind the Oval Office", Random House 1997.

So McCain's little temper flares should not worry anybody...I know they don't worry me.

The old man's stupidity worries me more than his temper. That plus his age and his obvious affinity for war. Just another bush.

Maybe we need someone who will get angry and mean, and a few x felons to guard the border.

Yea he is always red faced

globetrotter,

Would you say the same for say, FDR.

Yes, he does have a temper. And yes, he's not the first one with that issue. However, with the state of the nation more vulnerable than it has ever been and with a Third World War always right on the horizon, I'm not comfortable with someone like that having his finger on the button, if you know what I mean. There was much less threat waaaay back when when it wasn't quite so easy to end it all for everybody because of a temper tantrum.

Actually, there is no "button", and the president can't singlehandedly authorize a nuclear strike just for the heck of it. But if the man didn't have a temper, the lefties would be saying he's weak willed and a milquetoast...you know, like Obama.

If I were concerned about a nuke strike, I'd worry about Hildabeast. If I were concerned about a nuke on DC, I'd worry about Hussein Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Actually, there is no "button", and the president can't singlehandedly authorize a nuclear strike just for the heck of it. But if the man didn't have a temper, the lefties would be saying he's weak willed and a milquetoast...you know, like Obama.

What?!? We entered into a pre-emptive war with little to no support. The President just decided to AND gave false information as justification.

So, if someone with a temper has that kind of authority, I can only imagine who we will be bombing next....

Last time I checked we hadn't employed nuclear weapons. And please grow up about the "false information" thing. This wasn't a court of law, and in intelligence operations you have to look at capabilities rather than intentions. If you have ambiguous information (which is always the case) you have to err in a direction that protects US interests. Think about it this way (I'll simplify an extraordinarily complex situation):

Case 1: Saddam Hussein, murderous megalomaniac, actually has or is actively seeking/developing WMDs.
Case 2: Saddam Hussein, murderous megalomaniac, is not in possession or seeking/developing WMDs.
Response A: The US takes pre-emptive military action to depose Saddam Hussein and negate the potential of WMDs in the hands of said murderous megalomaniac.
Response B: The US does not take pre-emptive military action...yada yada yada.

Situation 1A: The world breathes a sign of relief because SH cannot threaten other countries with WMDs. George Bush villified by the lefties because he couldn't prove SH was going to actually use the weapons.
Situation 2A: Saddam dead. George Bush is villified by the lefties.
Situation 1B: Millions dead from SH employing WMDs on neighboring countries; builds Iraqi empire holding world's oil hostage. George Bush villified by the lefties for not doing something.
Situation 2B: Saddam Hussein, still a murderous megalomaniac, still in reign of terror and threatening to acquire WMDs. George Bush villified for not doing enough.

Frankly, I cannot imagine a different response for the operational environment he was faced with. No proof? In this environment, the first proof would have likely been a large cloud of VX gas in downtown Jerusalem, with nuclear weapons flying from Israel to the rest of the middle east. Not an easy consequence to imagine.

I've read that McCain is known for his temper and this is not his only out burst. There is a good quote that I read by a Republican who said he shudders at the thought of him being President. (I don't have it handy but will look for it)

The Corporate Media know this but give him a free pass. The point about a temper is sometimes crises and events get "hot" and escalate quickly and can easily fly out of hand. If tensions rise in the Mideast, like an attack or another War with Israel in Lebanon or war with Iran or should there be a terrorist attack in America we need a level headed person in charge. We are in truly dangerous times and face real problems of food, water and energy shortages as well as Global Warming. We need someone who recognizes the real problems the world is facing.

If we think back to the Cuban Missile Crises the Pentagon and Kennedy's cabinet all endorsed an attack on Cuba but Kennedy was more thoughtful about the situation. I have read the same about Eisenhower and it was one of the reasons for his famous warning about the Military Industrial Complex. He was constantly urged to attack and use Nuclear Weapons to resolve world problems but again he was more thoughtful and looked for other solutions other then war.

To tell you the truth I fear for all the candidates. I don't think McCain would be a good president and don't agree with his polices. I think Hillary would be eager to show she can be tough and although Obama knows the problems we face may be putty in the Pentagons hands because of his inexperience. But I would go with Obama because of his intelligence and awareness of the real problems.

As far as Iraq and Saddam goes there was never any real evidence he had WMD and the intelligence all said it was doubtful. Cheney created a special group to "cherry pick" informationt to support an attack and ignore the rest. They also lied about the Niger connections, the aluminum tubes and an al Qaeda connection. Iraq was a weakened country due to the sanctions. Most of the world knew it and it is why the UN refused to sanction an attack.

The UN inspectors found no evidence of any WMD and Bush knew there wasn't any and it is why he attacked before American public opinion refused to to believe him anymore.

The war is about contronlling the region and the oil.

Sorry for the long post but I am trying to answer a few posts.

The examples that I have seen in the media - many years ago - of John McCain's temper have never bothered me. In the examples I read, he was justified to be angry. Chewing someone out can be very motivating.

quote:

Originally posted by CrustyMac:
The examples that I have seen in the media - many years ago - of John McCain's temper have never bothered me. In the examples I read, he was justified to be angry. Chewing someone out can be very motivating.

You can't motivate a lib by chewing them out. It only hearts their "feelings". You know their whole world is about "feelings", right?

I have read that McCain's temper is famous and he's been known to blow up at his staff, other republicans and other Senators on the Senate Floor.

This is in my file but I don't have time right now to checkout the links

"Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

"Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/f...ain_temper_is_tamed/

Regardless of what you spin, McCain is the only candidate that has ever demonstrated that he considers service to his country to be more important than self.

But, of course, you being you will probably find some way to twist that into some sort of MDS.

zippadeedoodah, McCain is a rich mans joke even the conservatives know that and only take up for him because they want four more years of Bush and a war to go with it. No spin just fact!

There's no spin here, McCain is famous for his temper among those who work with him and know him. It has been pretty much kept out of the press until now. People should know about it and take it into consideration.

As far as service to ones country goes the military is not the only way a person serves there country. The country is the "the People." Not any institution or office. Liberals who defend our rights are also serving the country. I was draft age during the Vietnam War but did not serve because of the lottery system that started under Nixon. I openly opposed the war because I felt it was wrong and was not good for the country. That was also service to my country.

Today opposing the war in Iraq and speaking out to defend our rights is also, "Service To The Country," The People.

I'd rather have someone in the White House with a little temper than someone who is too afraid to face an interview on cable news or has to shed those fake tears everytime they don't win.

I imagine that the President of the United States can't pick and choose interviews/appearances based on the difficulty of the situation and the potential for catfights between Hillary/Nancy would be comical. I think Speaker Pelosi would make 'President Clinton' cry everytime .

quote:

Originally posted by mkirk:
I'd rather have someone in the White House with a little temper than someone who is too afraid to face an interview on cable news or has to shed those fake tears everytime they don't win.

I imagine that the President of the United States can't pick and choose interviews/appearances based on the difficulty of the situation and the potential for catfights between Hillary/Nancy would be comical. I think Speaker Pelosi would make 'President Clinton' cry everytime .

Hmmmm, Sounds like something you got from Fox News.

As compared with the hundreds of cut and paste jobs you post?

quote:

Originally posted by JJPAUL:

quote:

Originally posted by mkirk:
I'd rather have someone in the White House with a little temper than someone who is too afraid to face an interview on cable news or has to shed those fake tears everytime they don't win.

I imagine that the President of the United States can't pick and choose interviews/appearances based on the difficulty of the situation and the potential for catfights between Hillary/Nancy would be comical. I think Speaker Pelosi would make 'President Clinton' cry everytime .

Hmmmm, Sounds like something you got from Fox News.

Hmmm, but you'd never find on alternet.

quote:

Originally posted by JJPAUL:

Hmmmm, Sounds like something you got from Fox News.

Nope, just out of my intelligent well-informed brain. If you think I am that good, maybe I should go apply for a job there! Except I am very well paid for the job I've had for over 18 years.

Is Fox my news of choice? Absolutely, but I watch others also, my husband says it is always best to know what your enemy is up to (military training for 24+ years).

We can't wait to watch Wright (doesn't deserve to have Reverend before his given name) on 60 minutes tonight and Senator Obama's 'taped' interview on Fox, do you know why is he afraid to do a live interview with Fox? He also doesn't want to do anymore debates with Senator Clinton. It must be getting hot in the kitchen .

When we are discussing McCain we are not talking about "someone with a little temper," we are talking about someone who can't control their temper. As I have stated before a world leader needs to be intelligent and be able to evaluate situations rather then react. Tough talk may sound strong and "sexy" but it can sometimes lead to disastrous results.

No one is more afraid of the press then Bush who denies certain journalists access to the White House press conferences and who calls on "plants" like that guy Gannon to lob well rehearsed questions and answers.

I don't think it's such a bad thing that Hillary shows emotions and I feel if we had a leader that had emotions and feelings we may be better off.

And I don't think JJPaul was giving you a compliment when he said it sounded like Fox News, which has a terribly low reputation as do all Ruppert Murdoch publications.

quote:

Originally posted by Southern Patriot:

quote:

Originally posted by CrustyMac:
The examples that I have seen in the media - many years ago - of John McCain's temper have never bothered me. In the examples I read, he was justified to be angry. Chewing someone out can be very motivating.

You can't motivate a lib by chewing them out. It only hearts their "feelings". You know their whole world is about "feelings", right?

It would not hurt if you had some feelings. You only feel for yourself and that it sad. Hillary was feeling sorry for herself and not the American people. Hillary is for the rich democrats.